FROM THE EDITOR
Election Day is Tuesday, November 8th. This issue contains a chart of southern Worcester County towns listing candidates for Federal and State office. Some towns are listed twice because they are split into two districts. For example, the southern one-third of Oxford is within the 18th Worcester House Legislative District, while the remaining two-thirds are within the 7th Worcester House District. The chart also includes candidates for Governor’s Council with a brief explanation of what the Governor’s Council does. A complete slate of candidates for political office can be found on http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/ele16/state_election_cand_16.htm.
There are four ballot questions, only one of which pertains to landlords: That is Question Four, a proposal to legalize recreational marijuana. Thanks to the leadership of SPOA and the participation of other landlord groups (including SWCLA) during the Medical Marijuana hearings, this initiative includes wording offering protection to landlords.
If the voters of Massachusetts choose to legalize recreational marijuana, landlords can ban smoking it on their properties if a general no-smoking policy is in effect. This prohibition would apply only to smoking; consuming marijuana in forms such as Alice B. Toklas brownies, tinctures, oils, or other non-smoking means would be allowed. Additionally, landlords can prohibit tenants from growing marijuana, and processing marijuana for its resin and oil. (This is by no means a plug for a YES vote on the issue. It is only meant to assuage the concerns landlords might have regarding the specter of legalized pot.)
Question One deserves comment only because it speaks to the influence of big bucks on making laws favoring narrow interests. In the print and broadcast media, the proposal is summarized as “Expanded Slot-Machine Gaming”, or “If approved, would allow the Gaming Commission to issue an additional slots license”, or words to that effect. Proponents argue that the additional license will create thousands of jobs and inject millions of dollars into the economy. With apologies to Paul Harvey, these are only sound bites that fail to reveal “… the rest of the story.”
Looking close, the proposal is so narrowly worded that the one additional slots license applies only to the owner of property located adjacent to Suffolk Downs in East Boston. The person who covets that property is the same person responsible for securing enough signatures to put this question on the November ballot. He is a wealthy United States businessman, making his home in Thailand, backed by other wealthy business interests. Their plan is to establish a casino next to the racetrack and to “prop up the state’s horse racing industry.”
Regardless of one’s opinion regarding horseracing, the proposal – although legal - is unscrupulous: It’s language is self-serving; the State Legislature and the Gaming Commission have both shot it down; and the casino, as envisioned, will only have slot machines – more than a thousand of them.
Imagine, if you will, a casino with no blackjack tables, no roulette, and no dice – only a thousand one-armed bandits. Would you consider this type of establishment to be a high-class enterprise worthy of attracting high rollers, big tippers, and top name entertainment: Or, just a dive attracting a clientele with hopes of hitting it big with the rent money?
For those of us living in Worcester County, a YES vote on this ballot question probably won’t have much affect. The details of the initiative, however, provide a good example of why voters should be skeptical of proposed legislation promising financial windfalls for all.
